kylemittskus

In completely other news, Obama made some comment about the Supreme Court not overturning the Healthcare reform that Congress passed because they aren't elected officials. Uh..... scary, scary, comment, IMO. I'm paraphrasing the comment, obviously, but anything remotely close to the comment or its message is pretty damn concerning.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin

kylemittskus wrote:In completely other news, Obama made some comment about the Supreme Court not overturning the Healthcare reform that Congress passed because they aren't elected officials. Uh..... scary, scary, comment, IMO. I'm paraphrasing the comment, obviously, but anything remotely close to the comment or its message is pretty damn concerning.

MarkDaSpark

kylemittskus wrote:In completely other news, Obama made some comment about the Supreme Court not overturning the Healthcare reform that Congress passed because they aren't elected officials. Uh..... scary, scary, comment, IMO. I'm paraphrasing the comment, obviously, but anything remotely close to the comment or its message is pretty damn concerning.

The really scary part was his claim about "“overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”"

Really? IIRC, every Republican voted against it, and they had to "bribe" or threaten at least two Democratic Senators (Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu come quickly to mind).

Just imagine if he gets 4 more years to stack SCOTUS with his left-leaning appointees.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus

MarkDaSpark wrote:The really scary part was his claim about "“overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”"

To me, that comes off as a dig against the SC justices who are not elected but appointed, as if that's a problem or makes their decisions less important or valid or I have no idea or what else, but yikes.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark

kylemittskus wrote:All your points are valid except for this one. My point was that Z wouldn't have needed protection if he hadn't pursued M in the first place. And of course police can't protect us all the time. Nowhere did I even allude to anything remotely saying so. But putting yourself in situations (let's assume that Z thought M was one of the robbers) is a terrible idea! He did the exact opposite of trying to avoid any confrontation. Like I said, I haven't judged innocent or guilty. I'm just arguing the other side of the coin as you are. And I think doing so is bringing out interesting points and ways to look at the situation.

Umm, yes you did. Right there in the middle of your post that I quoted.

And I don't for a second buy the "police can't always protect us" argument.

Or did you mean another "police can't always protect us" argument?

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

I don't see Obama winning Florida or Pennsylvania (certainly not Indiana, North Carolina, or Virginia).

I don't think Romney has a prayer with the Independents, so unless he goes the route of few states big electoral numbers I just don't see it. Also, I work in Natural Resources. I'm intimately aware of EPA's Reach. FWS also, holy wow do they have a LOT of power.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

coynedj

If Obama wins there will be no need to learn Russian or to speak highly of communism, but I doubt I’ll ever convince some folks of that (p.s.: communisms sucks). But the election is far from being in the bag for him.

Romney can still win, but he needs to get away from playing defense. He who has to constantly explain himself and downplay his past statements and actions is poorly positioned to win, and that’s what Obama will try to keep Romney doing.

To me, the election will hinge on five things. I’m sure there will be more, but I’m only coming up with these at the moment.

1) The economy. If it keeps recovering, even if slowly, it helps Obama. If we slip back into recession, it helps Romney. Should be obvious.
2) The Etch-a-Sketch. People have pulled this off before, and I’m sure Romney has smart people around him working on how to do it. The difficulty for him is that flip-flopping is something that people already hold against him, and we’re on notice that he’ll be trying to do it again.
3) Women. Romney, and Republicans in general, need to repair some of the grievous damage they’ve done to themselves with female voters. Time will help here, but you can bet that there will be a lot of attack ads focusing on the “contraception is the devil’s work” meme.
4) Congress. Democrats will be running against the excesses of Republican-controlled statehouses, the comments/proposals of some Republican Congressmen, and the Ryan budget, especially what it does to Medicare. Republicans will be running against deficit spending, entitlement creep, and the fear that U.S. power is in free-fall. Which holds our attention better is an open question.
5) Attitude. Americans don’t like grouchy politicians. If either candidate can clothe himself in optimism and American exceptionalism, he can run as many negative television ads as he likes. Reagan was the master of this, and Obama did it pretty well four years ago. But he needs a revised version for this election, because a repeat of last election’s themes won’t get him far. I don’t yet see Romney doing much on this front. He doesn’t get people excited (a brilliant and novel insight, I’m sure you’ll agree).

The odds right now favor Obama, but the election is a long way off. It’s still wide open, if Romney can play his cards right. Poker playing doesn’t seem to be a great strength of his, though. Same for digging himself out of holes. Right now I think Obama wins, but not in a blowout by any means.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

bhodilee

coynedj wrote:If Obama wins there will be no need to learn Russian or to speak highly of communism, but I doubt I’ll ever convince some folks of that (p.s.: communisms sucks). But the election is far from being in the bag for him.

Romney can still win, but he needs to get away from playing defense. He who has to constantly explain himself and downplay his past statements and actions is poorly positioned to win, and that’s what Obama will try to keep Romney doing.

To me, the election will hinge on five things. I’m sure there will be more, but I’m only coming up with these at the moment.

1) The economy. If it keeps recovering, even if slowly, it helps Obama. If we slip back into recession, it helps Romney. Should be obvious.
2) The Etch-a-Sketch. People have pulled this off before, and I’m sure Romney has smart people around him working on how to do it. The difficulty for him is that flip-flopping is something that people already hold against him, and we’re on notice that he’ll be trying to do it again.
3) Women. Romney, and Republicans in general, need to repair some of the grievous damage they’ve done to themselves with female voters. Time will help here, but you can bet that there will be a lot of attack ads focusing on the “contraception is the devil’s work” meme.
4) Congress. Democrats will be running against the excesses of Republican-controlled statehouses, the comments/proposals of some Republican Congressmen, and the Ryan budget, especially what it does to Medicare. Republicans will be running against deficit spending, entitlement creep, and the fear that U.S. power is in free-fall. Which holds our attention better is an open question.
5) Attitude. Americans don’t like grouchy politicians. If either candidate can clothe himself in optimism and American exceptionalism, he can run as many negative television ads as he likes. Reagan was the master of this, and Obama did it pretty well four years ago. But he needs a revised version for this election, because a repeat of last election’s themes won’t get him far. I don’t yet see Romney doing much on this front. He doesn’t get people excited (a brilliant and novel insight, I’m sure you’ll agree).

The odds right now favor Obama, but the election is a long way off. It’s still wide open, if Romney can play his cards right. Poker playing doesn’t seem to be a great strength of his, though. Same for digging himself out of holes. Right now I think Obama wins, but not in a blowout by any means.

I saw at lunch today that Romney says Obama's economic policies hurt women, though around 60% of new jobs have been for women. I love Romney, glad he can be my candidate.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

If both are unemployed, yes. If they need both incomes, yes. Even if they needed both incomes they'd still be screwed if he worked and she didn't I guess.

That wasn't the point though, it was that his economic policies were hurting women. They're the ones working. If anything it's hurting men. I just found it funny we discussed Romney's need to get back women voters and the first thing he did is attack Obama on Women's issues. Sounds like he's got a competent campaign staff.

If it's because the man feels emasculated, no. I'd love it if my wife made more than I did and I could stay home.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

chemvictim

It's not good for anyone to be out of work. I recall reading that men's employment was recovering faster than women's, but men were hit much harder to begin with. I think it's pretty weak for Romney to take this approach, but anything's better than having him talk about women's reproductive issues.

Edit: as long as I'm advising Romney, I think he should talk about this Buffett rule. What Tiny Flowers is that? Come on, Obama.

MarkDaSpark

chemvictim wrote:It's not good for anyone to be out of work. I recall reading that men's employment was recovering faster than women's, but men were hit much harder to begin with. I think it's pretty weak for Romney to take this approach, but anything's better than having him talk about women's reproductive issues.

Edit: as long as I'm advising Romney, I think he should talk about this Buffett rule. What Tiny Flowers is that? Come on, Obama.

True.

‎"The Buffett rule is for left-leaning elites who think voters are dolts and easily baited into becoming envious of others. It is for the economically illiterate who imagine that by taking more money from a tiny sliver of the population that already contributes a huge portion of the country’s taxes we will do. . . well do what, exactly? Not anything to address the debt."

Even more telling ... "In fact, the poverty rate – the worst kind of income inequality – has increased under this president. Last fall figures showed we went from a poverty rate of 14.3 to 15.1 percent."

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rpm

‎"The Buffett rule is for left-leaning elites who think voters are dolts and easily baited into becoming envious of others. It is for the economically illiterate who imagine that by taking more money from a tiny sliver of the population that already contributes a huge portion of the country’s taxes we will do. . . well do what, exactly? Not anything to address the debt."

Even more telling ... "In fact, the poverty rate – the worst kind of income inequality – has increased under this president. Last fall figures showed we went from a poverty rate of 14.3 to 15.1 percent."

It's so bad that Jay Leno quipped that even Obama's doing worse under President Obama.

rpm

kylemittskus wrote:How skewed is that number, though? There was a recession that was, in part, not Obama's fault (how much was or wasn't is obviously up for debate).

Remember, the "Bush recession" was over by mid-2009 according the administration. It's all been uphill from their. 'Course, at something of a snail's pace... and not very much at that, and, we're still all worse off than we were four years ago....

MarkDaSpark

In fact, Obama has boosted Michigan with his massive multi-billion dollar auto bailout, and hampered Alabama with lawsuits.

Obama directed his lawyers in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to halt a major element of Alabama’s unemployment reduction program — the popular and bipartisan immigration reform law that requires residents to show work eligibility, which has opened up many jobs to Alabama residents since June 2011.

Campaign politics may play a role in Obama’s favoritism.

Stating the obvious in that last sentence. Once again, Obama tries to divide the country instead of uniting it.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark

8.) As observed by Milton Friedman, there are four ways of spending money. From most efficient to least efficient:

a. Spend your own money on yourself.

b. Spend your own money on someone else.

c. Spend someone else’s money on yourself.

d. Spend someone else’s money on someone else (which happens to be how government spends money).

Just seems to me that most of last year's Occupy Wall St. people wanted to use C & D.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark

On New Year's Eve, with almost no mainstream media attention given to it, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or NDAA, into law. Since I am not an attorney, I will fall back on the ACLU's analysis of this disastrous new law: "On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield."

"indefinite military detention without charge or trial" --- What Tiny Flowers???

And people are going to vote for Obama???

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus

"indefinite military detention without charge or trial" --- What Tiny Flowers???

And people are going to vote for Obama???

I'm not entirely clear how this is different than Bush's Patriot Act, although I'm sure it is. This seems to be along the same concerning lines of that American Obama ordered the hit on (can't remember his name).

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

PetiteSirah

kylemittskus wrote:I'm not entirely clear how this is different than Bush's Patriot Act, although I'm sure it is. This seems to be along the same concerning lines of that American Obama ordered the hit on (can't remember his name).

It's not different from Bush. And Bush isn't different from anybody else in history.

The traditional war powers have always permitted the detention of combatants for the duration of hostilities. Citizenship does not now, and has not ever, had anything to do with it (see, e.g., the Civil War, where the North's official position was that the Southerners remained American Citizens).

The difference is that you have non-state actors and soldiers without uniforms who themselves don't obey the laws of war. So you do have hostilities that last for decades, if not longer.

Accordingly, it's much harder to get them (and there's always an issue with "them", like the People's Front of Judea, to say who "they" are), to actually agree to lay down arms.

(I'm sure RPM could put together a much longer, better, more thorough, and more historically accurate piece, starting from Grotius, but this is just my $0.02)

MarkDaSpark

PetiteSirah wrote:It's not different from Bush. And Bush isn't different from anybody else in history.

The traditional war powers have always permitted the detention of combatants for the duration of hostilities. Citizenship does not now, and has not ever, had anything to do with it (see, e.g., the Civil War, where the North's official position was that the Southerners remained American Citizens).

The difference is that you have non-state actors and soldiers without uniforms who themselves don't obey the laws of war. So you do have hostilities that last for decades, if not longer.

Accordingly, it's much harder to get them (and there's always an issue with "them", like the People's Front of Judea, to say who "they" are), to actually agree to lay down arms.

(I'm sure RPM could put together a much longer, better, more thorough, and more historically accurate piece, starting from Grotius, but this is just my $0.02)

Except you still had Habeas corpus for citizens, and it seems to be suspended with the NDAA, or am I totally off on that?

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim

Just seems to me that most of last year's Occupy Wall St. people wanted to use C & D.

I never could figure out what the Occupy people wanted or what they were doing. Not that I spent much time on it.

I read the eight principles and I agreed with most of them, but I don't typically agree with conservative politicians' ideas about individual liberties (or lack thereof, when it comes to certain people). I'd like our conservative politicians to review principles 1-3 and 6 and then get back to me. I'm not sure about number 4...would we all pay taxes "voluntarily?" I would, but I probably wouldn't pay as much! lol

MarkDaSpark

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.